Carl is outside in his boxers trying to get his girlfriend’s cat out of a tree when everything with a roof on the planet is destroyed and the smaller number of survivors are made to compete in an intergalactic dungeon game similar to D&D. If this sounds kind of dumb, I described it correctly; it’s kind of dumb. It’s also fairly entertaining and has a good amount of heart. People who have played any sort of role playing game, like World Of Warcraft, will probably be extra amused.
All the “magic” is technology though.
So? Nothing about it is realistic, science fictions requires a basis of reality, it’s supposed to be something you can see your world in or part of the galaxy. Along those lines.
Hard science fiction is when it tries to fit into our current physics and accepted notions.
Edit: It’s not more science fiction than Star Wars and Star Trek, and both of those are considered “science fantasy”, I don’t think it reaches even that level. It’s fully in fantasy, don’t let the “earth” and “human” aspects conflate it.
In other hobbies they call people like you gatekeepers.
For providing information to people who may not know better?
The fact that you’re not hearing the condescension in your own comments is a real big red flag.
Just because you don’t like an answer or the informations someone is providing doesn’t mean that person is being condescending. I can’t defend my point? These are the takes by authors like Asimov and Pratchett, they’re the ones that created and defined these genres.
DCC and Star Trek are no less science fiction than a time travel story or one that relies on time travel, faster than light travel, races of aliens that can change their shape, or humans that can change their gender at will.
I’m story you think you have drawn the one true line, but it speaks to a flaw in your character not a flaw in others.
They’re writers not gods. Prachett was best friends with a rapist.
They’re fantasy with scifi aspects, I covered this already.
A scifi book about a detective is still a scifi before a detective novel, a detective novel with scifi aspects, is a detective novel first. These distinctions are important.
There’s a hierarchy, and a proper way books are presented( disagree if you want.
What relevance does someone friends have to the topic at hand?
This is a dumb take.
Star Trek is just a space fantasy. Klingons are orcs, Vulcans are elves, teleporters are magic, phasers are wands, and telekinesis is spells. It’s how the stories are told and material within that dictates its genre, not a few aspects like “technology”. Technology has never meant “scifi” technology exists in regular fiction and even non-fiction too. Space ships are part of our current history, a story with it doesn’t become “sci-fi” just for that reason.
It’s a fantasy in a space setting. Not a scifi in xxx setting.
For “true” scifi the science and technology are supposed to be a believable extension of our universe, not some magical hand waving away fantasy mumbojumbo. So most of your suggestions fall into the fantasy aspect, most of those can only be explained by hand waving, there’s no basis on reality.
For FTL, it can be wormholes, instead of magic engines.
By your description 99% of SciFi is fantasy. You’re just cherrypicking what you feel is “pure” sci-fi and what isn’t.
The Expanse, The Culture novels, Foundation, etc… is just fantasy by your description. I could use your rules to pick apart most sci-fi novels and explain how they are just fantasy.
A little piece of life advice, unless you’re in chemistry or metallurgy, purity tests always make you the bad guy.
Sorry but to most people star wars is scifi. I appreciate that you’re correct, but words only have so much value as their ability to be understood, so sometimes wrong words are right.
No, it’s distinctly fantasy because of the force. It’s not even up for debate, the genre “science fantasy” was essentially made for Star Wars/Trek because they’re fantasy, but had so many parts of science fiction along with it.
If “most people” are flat earthers, that doesn’t suddenly make them correct.
As you said, word have meaning, but they ALSO evolve over time to accommodate new ideas, as well as local dialects that bleed out in common vernacular.
And that’s great, but outside of the sci-fi fantasy niche people do not refer to anything with a space ship as science fantasy. Pop-Culturally space ships and lasers is sci-fi.
Maybe because they don’t know better…?
If someone is gonna keep using the word wrong and never get told it’s wrong, how are they supposed to know?
This isn’t even a nerd only or a niche thing.
The MCU isn’t suddenly science fiction because one person has a space ship, what kind of logic is that?
Yes, the distinctions between sci-fi, science fantasy, epic fantasy, etc are lost on a lot of people. I can appreciate that posts about DCC are not particularly relevant to the /c/sciencefiction community. I think that some movies in the MCU are explicitly categorized as science fiction on platforms like IMDB and Netflix, for example Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor: Ragnarok. The rigid definition of sci-fi that people use in the literary world are often ignored at the scope of mass appeal.
So quite perpetuating it lmfao. People like you, who know “better” who keep using the terms wrong are why it’s still happening.
Why is someone providing some information to others so upsetting to you?
Every square is a rectangle, but call it one, and you’ll be corrected. It’s not a rectangle in this case, it’s a square.
The phrase has two definitions, someone is trying to share their opinion on a book in a place they thought was relevant, the book is listed as Science Fiction on goodreads. It just comes off as gate keeping.